Getting Back to the Point – The Heart of the Santander CARS Mandate Editorial

EDITORIAL REBUTTAL

Our initial editorial titled “Santander Demands CARS Certification – The Contingent Fee Contradiction” we addressed the issue of Santander/Chrysler demanding that all of their approximate 700 agencies be CARS Certified. Despite our extreme efforts to distance any blame on RISC, CARS or Joe Taylor, Stamatis Ferrolis or Mark Lacek, all of their editorial responses focused solely upon their defense. It seems like either they all miss the point or perhaps they agree with us and just can’t say it?

  Read More!

Just the Facts Ma’am – Editorial Response from Joe Taylor

EDITORIAL REBUTTAL

Before I get started on this article I would be remiss if I did not first recognize those brave and compassionate recovery agents who have gone to Houston to help in the aftermath of hurricane Harvey. I thank you for your efforts and pray for your safe return to your own home soon.  I also continue to send prayers to those agents affected by Hurricane Harvey.  Now, to my reasons for writing this article.

  Read More!

Why Santander Chose CARS – Editorial Response from Mark Lacek

EDITORIAL REBUTTAL

I read the recent editorial about Santander/Chrysler and I felt the need to respond from my point of view. One of the questions in the article was why Santander/Chrysler chose the C.A.R.S. National Certification Program for ensuring that the recovery agents they hire are professionally trained. I am going to try to answer that question only.

  Read More!

Rebuttal to Santander CARS Certification Editorial

EDITORIAL REBUTTAL

I read your editorial regarding Santander/Chrysler and I would like to take this opportunity to respond to parts of it.  I have known Joe Taylor and Stamatis Ferarolis for more years than I can remember and I totally agree with what your editorial said about them so we will leave that where it is.

The two things I want to respond to is contingency and certification and I mean real professional certification.

  Read More!

Remembering Back When – Repossessing in the 60’s

….A long, long time ago

Guest Editorial

In looking at our industry as it is today I began to compare it to what it was like some 50 years ago.  The changes are huge and so I thought maybe it might be interesting to reminisce by putting those changes in an article.  Some of the “old timers” (I mean really, really old timers) will relate to those times and those who were not there back then may enjoy reading about them.  This article is all factual and is based completely from my personal experiences when I came into the industry in the 1960’s.

  Read More!

Are Creditors Liable for the Acts of Recovery Agents?

jdg_jdy_LGuest Editorial

Even today many creditors will argue that they are not responsible for the acts of the collateral recovery specialists they hire to recover their defaulted collateral. Their argument, which the courts disagree with, is that the collateral recovery specialist is an “independent contractor” and therefore must assume the liability associated with the self-help repossession process.

  Read More!

Who Are Those People Anyway?

towtrk_night_yrdGuest Editorial

Let me tell you a little about “those” people. They are talented professionals that must wear many faces and must be consummate professionals when servicing their clients. A few of the hats “those” people must wear in order to service their clients while managing the potential risks are: Private Detective, psychologist, locksmith, lawyer, technology specialist, communications specialist, professional defensive drivers While willing to work 49 hour days!

  Read More!

The Court Got It Right

FIST_CSHGuest Editorial

If you read CUCollector, which is an excellent forum for information and accuracy for the collateral recovery industry and the lending community you probably read the recent article regarding a lawsuit filed in federal court under the FDCPA by Wanda Vantu v. Echo Recovery, LLC, et al. This article has stimulated lots of discussion, the primary reason being that many in the collateral recovery industry as well as some lenders seem surprised that a Section of the FDCPA specifically applies to collateral recovery agents (Security Enforcers as defined by the Federal Trade Commission). I would like to follow up on the CUCollector article because, due to the proliferation of Wrongful Repossession lawsuits being litigated in federal courts I believe this is a subject that warrants further discussion and clarification.

  Read More!

Skip to toolbar